I read an article on www.nytimes.com (sorry I don't know how to link but it's a Oct.30 article and it was just put up 14 minutes ago) about the Russian Constitutional Court overturning part of a law that was limited news coverage of election campaigns to basically nonexistent. The original law was made by the Central Electoral Commission, this law allowed "authorities to shut down news media outlets after two warnings for anything deemed as biased campaign coverage." This type of law basically restricted all reporting of the elections period in Russia. However, recently on Thursday this law was overturned, "the court ruled that a journalist can now be accused of unlawful bias only if the intention to support a particular candidate is proved in court." Most of the people who were for the law "acknowledged that perhaps it went to far."
Perhaps it went to far!!! If we had that type of restrictions in the U.S no one would no anything about the scandal going on in the Oval Office. I'm glad they finally changed that law and realized thier mistake. There is no way you can prove the intentions of a journalists. Actually this didn't surprise me. Russia has always been government controlling and politically behind the U.S. But that particular law was too far. Especially after I just read chapter 22 and discovered that journalist have so much freedom and not as many limitations as other professions. Like the fact that they don't have to have a license. That's cool. I think journalism is a very important profession and like art cannot be limited or restricted without losing its creativivty.
After reading chapters 2-4 I just wanted to post two questions that I derived from the reading.
How are we the audience supposed to know what research done by scientists or journalists is credible or just heresay? And how do we even know what research is done with proxy's?
I understand that we have to do our own research. But first and foremost, just like newsrooms we have deadlines and no one has time to do a background check on every single thing they read. Also what if you can't find any info?
I was just wondering if anyone else had these same questions when reading the book.
After reading chapter one of It Ain't Necessarily So I was intrigued by the skepticism of the book towards news rooms decisions on what's considered news and what's not. Or whether something is news worthly or not. I found this very interesting in the book and it made me think about how much power the media has when it comes to deciding what they want the public to know and what they want to keep under wraps.
After reading an old article on google about how Heraldo Rivera (sorry about the spelling) was kicked out the country for disclosing the location of U.S military during a live news broadcast on national television. It made me realize that the news people had no control in that situation. The government only told them what they wanted them to know and what they felt was sufficient for the world to know. Like right now. If they do not want to depict the American soldiers or Bush in a negative manner. They simply don't tell us that hundreds of americans are dying over there. Or Bush was wrong about the budget and he is going to put the whole country in immense debt because he needs more money than what he proposed.
The news does this with everything. If they don't want us to know that a white officer shot and killed an unarmed teenage black boy they simply don't run the story and we never know unless it's linked. Who is really in control here the people, the news, or the government? This chapter really made me think.
After reading the article by BBC, Blondes 'To Die Out in 200 years', I honestly felt that the topic wasn't really news worthly because I could care less. However, the article was picked up by many people such as, a site called "Bottomquark" which is a technology and science discussion site. Obviously a guy by the user name of Joeypea felt that it was relevant news because he posted it on the site and put down the link to the article at BBC's site.
Also a site that dealt with politics I think it's called W-Politics picked up the article and posted it on the message board. Why? I am really not sure. I don't think the possibitlity of an endangered hair color is a political issue. Especially when most people dye thier hair anyway.
The article was researched by a professor Jonathan Rees at Edinburgh University. There was a link to Edinburgh's website also.
I'm not sure if its becuase I was working on trying to get the CD to work for 2 hours, or that the TV button would never allow me to check one new cast, or the simple fact that it took 6 hours out of my very busy day. Whatever the reason, I am highly upset about our last assignment on writing the crisis story and because of it I am behind in my work schedule. The assignment was very time consuming and after I came from my 9:30pm-11:30pm practice I was at my computer until 2am typing up an article for this tedious assignment. I do not need an assignment that takes six hours to do, that's not even a final copy, and that isn't even worth a lot of points. That's extremely upsetting. And I'm honestly fed up with the whole thing.